CollabTech 2010: Web 2.0 Technologies in Law Teaching

(Full Title) Web 2.0 Technologies in Law Teaching: Practical and Legal Issues

Date: Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Location: Thwing Center Spartan Room at Case Western Reserve Unviersity

Panelists: Andrea Matwyshyn, Michelle Jacobs, Jacqueline Lipton

Today, students are learning in more places than just the classroom, and educators are finding new ways to reach them anytime, anywhere. At this hands-on event, you’ll see for yourself how Mac, iPod, and iPhone make collaboration, content creation, and distribution easier than ever before. You’ll also see how Apple products can help you deliver professional-quality presentations, podcasts, and lesson plans.

Duration : 0:43:35

Read more about CollabTech 2010: Web 2.0 Technologies in Law Teaching

Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Ignores Sexual Abuse Case

Learn more: http://LiveAction.org

Watch our undercover video from another Wisconsin Planned Parenthood that shows medical misinformation:

Watch our previous videos showing sexual abuse coverup at other Planned Parenthood clinics at:
http://liveaction.org/index.php/projects/monalisa

Our videos have resulted in a Planned Parenthood staff firing and resignation, and the Birmingham Planned Parenthood clinic being placed on probation for 9 legal violations.

In response to this video, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin CEO Teri Huyck said, “In this particular circumstance, we did not have the name of the young woman. She did not give it to us. She did not provide any ID. So we were unable to make any report.” EXCEPT we DID give that information to Planned Parenthood…watch this video of us doing that and proving her statement a lie:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hbiAXJP3XsQ

Media coverage of this video:
NBC 4: http://bit.ly/cFlQTO
Journal Sentinel: http://bit.ly/a6jkp1
HotAir: http://bit.ly/bAdS6c
LifeNews: http://bit.ly/diN3z4
Daily Caller: http://bit.ly/cfOrnl

Planned Parenthood Location:
302 North Jackson Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Video recorded:
June 25th, 2008

Video recorded by:
Lila Rose & Jackie Stollar of Live Action

Media contact:
Lila Rose, media@liveaction.org

Duration : 0:3:47

Read more about Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Ignores Sexual Abuse Case

Public Children law Update

Emergency Steps and Human Rights Issues
Assessments, Funding and Contact
Threshold Criteria and Fact Findings
Disclosure — Legislation and Case Law
Case Law and Statute Update
Revised Public Law Outline

Duration : 0:2:12

Read more about Public Children law Update

The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope Richard Mack Oath Keeper 1 of 7

sheriffmack.com oathkeepers.org Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack presents his book The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope in Three Forks Montana, July 5, 2009. Sheriff Mack’s newest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government …

Duration : 0:10:11

Read more about The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope Richard Mack Oath Keeper 1 of 7

Top Reasons to Choose Law as a Career

People already in the legal profession, whose fundamental purpose is to help others resolve their legal problems, will endorse the fact that law as a career is intellectually fulfilling carrying ample financial rewards. Law offers you diverse career options and qualified lawyers are in great demand as the legal profession is expanding at a rapid […]

Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Q:To what extent did public and political opinion in the west undermine the impartiality of judicial decision-making during the cold-war era?
—————————————-

USA

In a famous dissent, Justice Douglas of the US Supreme Court declared:

‘We have deemed it more costly to liberty to suppress despised minorities than to let them vent their spleen’ (Dennis v United States U.S. 494 at p. 585 (1951) (U.S.S.C.).

No western democracy has practiced the tolerance exposed [mistake in video, it should read “expoused”] by Justice Douglas-in the above statement, without at some stage censoring unpopular organizations. Douglas was in a minority of two on a US Supreme Court bench which upheld convictions entered against Communist party sympathizers for conspiring to overthrow the US government. (Joseph, P,think it’s “1998” edn., Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, ).

In Dennis v United States, above, the US Supreme Court upheld convictions against communist party officials for conspiring to teach or advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. Here, the Court considered that the advocacy of the communist doctrine was to be equated with conspiring to forcibly overthrow the US government.

Dennis was decided in 1951, at the height of cold-war tensions between the USSR and the US. Justice Black aligned with Justice Douglas in the minority stating:

‘Public opinion being what it is now, few will protest the conviction of these Communist petitioners. There is hope, however, that in calmer times, when present pressures, passions, and fears subside, this or some other later court will restore the First Amendment liberties to the high place where they belong in a free society.’ (Dennis, supra, at 581).

Justice Black’s statement was realized six years later in Yates v United States 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (U.S.S.C). This time, a differently constituted Supreme Court bench quashed the convictions of 14 Communist Party leaders that had been entered for similar reasons under the same Act.

With the easing of east-west relations, the Court drew a clear distinction between the advocacy of forcible overthrow of government-as an abstract doctrine, and the advocacy of action to achieve that result.

According to legal philosopher Wolfgang Friedman, it was impossible to remove the judgment of the US Supreme Court from the political tensions and public opinions that existed at that time. (W. Friedman, Legal Theory, (4th edn. , 1960, at p.95).

Australia

Australia also expressed abhorrence at communist doctrine during the post-war era. In Burns v Ransley (1949) 79 C.L.R. 101 (H.C.), the Australian High Court upheld a conviction for sedition entered against a communist speaker who, when asked, announced that, in the event of a war, he would fight on the side of the Soviet Union. He was convicted for words he had spoken in reply to a hypothetical question, and not for inciting mutiny or violence.

The following year the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) declared the Australian Communist Party to be a revolutionary organization which jeopardized the defence of the Commonwealth. The statute dissolved the Communist Party and all affiliated organizations declared illegal under the Act.

The fundamental democratic principle of freedom of expression was restored when a majority of the High Court of Australia in Australian Communist Party v Commonwealth (1951) 83 CLR 1, declared the Communist Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth) to be unconstitutional and beyond the defence powers of the Commonwealth (see also R v Sharky (1949) 79 CLR 121).

New Zealand

During the early 1980s in New Zealand, Priminister Robert Muldoon took exception to the Socialist Unity Party and questioned it’s right to exist in a free and democratic society. However, a government, expounding the rule of law, must demonstrate greater justification for out-lawing a particular group or organization, for reasons other than personal enmity (Joseph, supra, at p.191).

See also New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s.14 (right to freedom of expression), and related case law; and Human Rights Act 1993, s.21(j)(prohibits discrimination on grounds of political opinion) incorporated, by reference, into s.19 NZBORA; note also- Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Act 2007; & see Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981, s.11 (offences involving New Zealand flag)

Duration : 0:4:20

Read more about Persecution of communists’ in (fake) western democracies: case law summaries

Hawaiian law allows foreign born children, born to non citizen parents to get birth certificates

Hawaiian law allows children born in other countries to get birth certificates if just one parent has had a residence for 1 year in Hawaii, (no citizenship needed). One parent could call by telephone to say he was born in Honolulu at home, and there is no checking. A LONG FORM birth certificate will easily clear it all up, listing the attending doctor. Obama’s short form, or “certification of live birth” can never be used as evidence for citizenship nor “natural born” status. All is laid out in this video. We’re disclosing the facts, praising law enforcement and the federal courts that are making such matters TRANSPARENT. Still approximately 30 cases are pending in courts demanding a long form birth certificate. At least one judge in California has finally not dismissed it on technicality but finally require at least one piece of evidence before the trial that is set for January 2010.

Duration : 0:10:15

Read more about Hawaiian law allows foreign born children, born to non citizen parents to get birth certificates

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the “Fairness Doctrine” is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were “public trustees,” and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view. That requirement was to be enforced by FCC mandate.

From the early 1940s, the FCC had established the “Mayflower Doctrine,” which prohibited editorializing by stations. But that absolute ban softened somewhat by the end of the decade, allowing editorializing only if other points of view were aired, balancing that of the station’s. During these years, the FCC had established dicta and case law guiding the operation of the doctrine.

In ensuing years the FCC ensured that the doctrine was operational by laying out rules defining such matters as personal attack and political editorializing (1967). In 1971 the Commission set requirements for the stations to report, with their license renewal, efforts to seek out and address issues of concern to the community. This process became known as “Ascertainment of Community Needs,” and was to be done systematically and by the station management.

The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer “equal opportunity” to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance–to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.

The FCC fairness policy was given great credence by the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC. In that case, a station in Pennsylvania, licensed by Red Lion Co., had aired a “Christian Crusade” program wherein an author, Fred J. Cook, was attacked. When Cook requested time to reply in keeping with the fairness doctrine, the station refused. Upon appeal to the FCC, the Commission declared that there was personal attack and the station had failed to meet its obligation. The station appealed and the case wended its way through the courts and eventually to the Supreme Court. The court ruled for the FCC, giving sanction to the fairness doctrine.

The doctrine, nevertheless, disturbed many journalists, who considered it a violation of First Amendment rights of free speech/free press which should allow reporters to make their own decisions about balancing stories. Fairness, in this view, should not be forced by the FCC. In order to avoid the requirement to go out and find contrasting viewpoints on every issue raised in a story, some journalists simply avoided any coverage of some controversial issues. This “chilling effect” was just the opposite of what the FCC intended.

By the 1980s, many things had changed. The “scarcity” argument which dictated the “public trustee” philosophy of the Commission, was disappearing with the abundant number of channels available on cable TV. Without scarcity, or with many other voices in the marketplace of ideas, there were perhaps fewer compelling reasons to keep the fairness doctrine. This was also the era of deregulation when the FCC took on a different attitude about its many rules, seen as an unnecessary burden by most stations. The new Chairman of the FCC, Mark Fowler, appointed by President Reagan, publicly avowed to kill to fairness doctrine.

By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.

Duration : 0:2:50

Read more about FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope Richard Mack Oath Keeper 3 of 7

http://sheriffmack.com/
http://oathkeepers.org/
Oath Keeper Sheriff Richard Mack presents his book The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope in Three Forks Montana, July 5, 2009.

Sheriff Mack’s newest book covers decades of research to prove once and for all that the sheriffs in this country are indeed the ultimate law authority in their respective jurisdictions. The sheriff absolutely has the power and responsiblity to defend his citizens against all enemies, including those from our own Federal Government. History, case law, common law and common sense all show clear evidence that the sheriff is the people’s protector in all issues of injustice and is responsible for keeping the peace in all matters. He is the last line of defense for his constituents; he is America’s last hope to regain our forgotten freedom. This short but powerful book is a must read for all citizens, sheriffs, and government officials that we may all work to return America to the constitutional republic she was meant to be. Amazing as it might be, the sheriff can make this happen!

Duration : 0:10:57

Read more about The County Sheriff America’s Last Hope Richard Mack Oath Keeper 3 of 7